Nous voulons un impôt européen sur les grandes fortunes pour financer la transition climatique et sociale et aider les pays victimes des dérèglements climatiques.
It can still be achieved via international agreement, the EU can serve its intended purpose by fostering such an agreement, and then codifying it later.
My key issue with it is the slow removal of national sovereignty and the movenent of decisionmaking further away from the voter. This is the exact kind of thing that has led to the EU repeatedly trying to force through impopular proposals that infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens such as chat control.
The EU needs to focus on its roots as a common market and united front for foreign policy, not on becoming an abomination of bureaucracy.
For the first part, I agree with you. An international agreement, like what was done for baseline multinational taxes, would be preferable. However, given the sway many million/billionaires hold over smaller (autocratic) countries, I don’t hold out much hope on that front, unfortunately.
As for your second point on moving decision making away from the voter, this is ideology. The EU parliement needs to vote on every text, and members are directly elected by EU citizens. For me (in France), I feel as though the EU has been much more respectful of democratic pressure than our national institutions (point in case, all the chat control proposals so far have been dismissed, where as our president has passed many suveillance and other highly unpopular laws unopposed).
There is certainly a point that can be made regarding regarding the fact that less populous countries send so few EU MEPs that they don’t feel that they hold much sway ovet the EU, and we clearly need to find a better system than we do now.
As for your last point, though I understand your position, I thouroughly disagree. There is no such thing as economics -let alone foreign policy- without politics, and it’s something that was clearly meant to be with the establishment of the EU Comission, Council, and Parliement. There are many political topics that are difficult to being up on each single national levels, but that can cause positive effects in each EU country if not around the world (the so called ‘Brussels effect’, notably with standardisation of plugs, the creation of carbon emmission roofs for cars, or even GDPR).
(btw I’m not one downvoting you, I think your point is interesting and needs to be discussed :) )
One more problem that at least I see with some EU-wide wealth tax is that EU doesn’t have a good track record of being able to really consider thoroughly the differences between nations. Decisions are made by the largest countries in the end and they don’t really know what, for example, a million euros buys you in Estonia, Sweden, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary etc.
I would actually be more welcoming to some generic EU tax, but these kinds of “let’s tax the wealthy people” taxes are hard to do on the EU level since “wealthy” has so many different numbers across the EU area.
It can still be achieved via international agreement, the EU can serve its intended purpose by fostering such an agreement, and then codifying it later.
My key issue with it is the slow removal of national sovereignty and the movenent of decisionmaking further away from the voter. This is the exact kind of thing that has led to the EU repeatedly trying to force through impopular proposals that infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens such as chat control.
The EU needs to focus on its roots as a common market and united front for foreign policy, not on becoming an abomination of bureaucracy.
For the first part, I agree with you. An international agreement, like what was done for baseline multinational taxes, would be preferable. However, given the sway many million/billionaires hold over smaller (autocratic) countries, I don’t hold out much hope on that front, unfortunately.
As for your second point on moving decision making away from the voter, this is ideology. The EU parliement needs to vote on every text, and members are directly elected by EU citizens. For me (in France), I feel as though the EU has been much more respectful of democratic pressure than our national institutions (point in case, all the chat control proposals so far have been dismissed, where as our president has passed many suveillance and other highly unpopular laws unopposed).
There is certainly a point that can be made regarding regarding the fact that less populous countries send so few EU MEPs that they don’t feel that they hold much sway ovet the EU, and we clearly need to find a better system than we do now.
As for your last point, though I understand your position, I thouroughly disagree. There is no such thing as economics -let alone foreign policy- without politics, and it’s something that was clearly meant to be with the establishment of the EU Comission, Council, and Parliement. There are many political topics that are difficult to being up on each single national levels, but that can cause positive effects in each EU country if not around the world (the so called ‘Brussels effect’, notably with standardisation of plugs, the creation of carbon emmission roofs for cars, or even GDPR).
(btw I’m not one downvoting you, I think your point is interesting and needs to be discussed :) )
One more problem that at least I see with some EU-wide wealth tax is that EU doesn’t have a good track record of being able to really consider thoroughly the differences between nations. Decisions are made by the largest countries in the end and they don’t really know what, for example, a million euros buys you in Estonia, Sweden, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary etc.
I would actually be more welcoming to some generic EU tax, but these kinds of “let’s tax the wealthy people” taxes are hard to do on the EU level since “wealthy” has so many different numbers across the EU area.
Taxes are also a market. Billionaires shop for the country that will tax them less.
An EU-wide tax scheme is acting like a single market.